Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• save_noteC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('save') but doesn't specify permissions, whether it overwrites existing notes, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't address key aspects like what 'save' entails or how it differs from siblings.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'name' but doesn't explain its role or format, and omits 'content' entirely. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Save a note with a given name' clearly states the action (save) and resource (note), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'add' or 'delete_note'. It doesn't specify whether this creates new notes or updates existing ones, which limits clarity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add' or 'delete_note'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a note must exist or if this creates new notes, leaving usage unclear.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• delete_noteC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a note, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether deletion is reversible, error handling, or confirmation requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'by name' without explaining what 'name' refers to (e.g., note title, ID, filename), its format, or constraints. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details, providing minimal semantic value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a note'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'save_note', but it's specific enough to understand the basic function without being tautological.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_note' or other sibling tools. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• addB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Add') but gives no behavioral details such as error handling, computational limits, or output format. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about how the tool behaves beyond the basic operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Add two numbers.') that directly states the purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, earning full marks for brevity and clarity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's low complexity (simple arithmetic), two parameters, and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines the result), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on error cases or behavioral traits, making it incomplete for robust agent use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description 'Add two numbers' implies parameters 'a' and 'b' are numbers to be added, adding basic semantics beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it doesn't specify constraints like integer vs. float or handling of large numbers, leaving gaps.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Add two numbers' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'multiply' by specifying addition, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other mathematical operations beyond the name.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'multiply' or non-mathematical siblings. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• multiplyA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Multiply two numbers' implies a mathematical operation but does not disclose traits like error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance, or side effects. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's low complexity (simple multiplication), two parameters with no schema descriptions, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are minor gaps for this straightforward tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that the parameters are 'two numbers,' clarifying their purpose. With schema description coverage at 0% (parameters 'a' and 'b' have no descriptions in the schema), this compensates well, though it does not detail constraints like integer vs. decimal.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Multiply two numbers' clearly states the specific verb ('multiply') and resource ('two numbers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add' (addition), 'delete_note' (deletion), and 'save_note' (saving). It is precise and unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'add' for addition, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.